Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
[ The following text is in the WINDOWS-1252 character set. ] [ Your display is set for the iso-8859-1 character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] Apologies for the lateness of my comments on this matter. Stevan has my full support. He is fully entitled to post on this list what he wants and to withold submissions if he deems that right. Those who hold the view that a list such as this one should ? or indeed can ? be run 'objectively' and according to some pseudo-democratic rules are, frankly, a bit naïve. Those who don?t like Stevan?s judgement with regard to acceptance of submissions can always start their own list. That said, Stevan hasn?t made it easy on himself, combining the task of moderator with that of host. Other lists separate these roles, and he may wish to consider drafting someone in to help him run the list and do the same (Stevan being the host; someone else being the moderator, I would have thought, given the definitions of the roles, see below). The definitions that, for instance, the BBC uses for the two roles are along the following lines: A host's job is to encourage interesting discussions and to help resolve disagreements. They post regularly on the lists, start discussions or reply to questions. Hosts do not reject messages. A moderator's job is to reject messages that break the ?House Rules?. Messages will not be rejected for any other reason. Moderators do not post messages on the lists. Among the BBC ?House Rules? are the following (there are more). Messages are rejected that ?Are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable ?Contain swear words or other language likely to offend ?Break the law or condone or encourage unlawful activity. ?Are considered to be off-topic ?Are considered to be ?spam?, that is posts containing the same, or similar, message posted multiple times. Apart from the possible problem of finding such help, the only difficulty of my suggestion that I can foresee is perhaps dealing with the last house rule mentioned. But then again, Stevan is free to set his own house rules. Jan Velterop
Re: Explaining and Justifying a Mandate
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008, s.jag...@roehampton.ac.uk wrote: What is an IR? What is an REF? What is an 'elevator pitch'? As a new Subject Head for my department, I find this type of email frustrating. If you are going to cross post, it would be nice if you provided a glossary for those of us uninitiated. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever and makes me wonder why I subscribed to this establishment. IR: Institutional Repository (for depositing research publication output) http://roar.eprints.org/ REF: The UK Research Excellence Framework (successor to the Research Assessment Exercise, RAE). http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Research/ref/ Elevator Pitch: An elevator pitch (or elevator speech) is an overview of an idea for a product, service, or project. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevator_pitch Open Access: Free only access to research publication output. http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/ Open Access Mandate: A requirement (by university or funder) to deposit research publication output in OA IR. http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/sign.php Stevan Harnad Many thanks. Suzy Jagger Subject Head, Computing Room QB022 Ext 3641 -Original Message- From: Council of Professors and Heads of Computing in UK universities [mailto:cphc-memb...@jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 12 October 2008 16:57 To: cphc-memb...@jiscmail.ac.uk Subject: Re: Explaining and Justifying a Mandate Apologies for cross-posting, but this brilliant list from Andrew Adams deserves wide circulation! Some references and suggested addenda below: On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Andrew A. Adams a.a.ad...@reading.ac.uk wrote: After about four years (which pales besides the length of service to OA of many on this list) of seriously pushing my University (University of Reading in the UK) they're finally going ahead with instituting an IR. The main driver for this seems to be the REF and the need to potentially track all the output of our researchers. At this stage our PVC(Research) is still somewhat unsure of the nature of the non-technical elements of an IR, i.e. about the language of and necessity for a deposit mandate. I therefore need to make a decisive pitch for a mandate. Ideally it needs to start with the elevator pitch and then provide solid foundations for the claims in the elevator pitch, and so I'm hoping the combined brain trust on this list can help me to identify these precise details (facts, figures and published references) which are the most accurate and compelling in putting the mandate case forward. Here is the skeleton of my pitch. -- An IR without a mandate is like serving soup with only a fork: you'll get something, but it's not really worth the trouble. Cite Arthur Sale's published studies on this, as well as Alma Swan's surveys: http://eprints.utas.edu.au/view/authors/Sale,_AHJ.html http://www.keyperspectives.co.uk/openaccessarchive/index.html -- The principle purpose of an IR is to provide access to our research output for those who do not have a subscription to the physical and/or online publisher production. Cite Ulrich's for the total serial output, and the ARL holdings stats for the fraction affordable to any university. http://www.ulrichsweb.com/ulrichsweb/ http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/arlbin/arl.cgi?task=setupstats -- Consequence: basic meta-data plus full text are the primary goal. Sophisticated meta-data is a secondary element and should NEVER be allowed to delay deposit. Bravo! Spot-on! -- Because our research outputs are readable by all, they are more likely to be cited. Cite the many studies in the Bibliography of Findings on the Open Access Impact Advantage: http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html -- Consequence: relative and absolute improvements in citation rates for high quality work. As above. -- Finding the output is not the big problem - syntactic search through Google Scholar, OAIster and others provide 95% of findability, but it's only useful to find the article if you can then read the article not just the meta-data. -- Consequence: scalable deposit requires one of the authors to deposit the full text and basic meta-data. More sophisticated meta-data may be added by a librarian or similar, but must not delay the availability of the item. Bravo! Spot-on! -- No academic or university has ever been sued for making their peer reviewed journal output available in an IR. -- Consequence: the default should be open access to the full text. In case of doubt about a publisher's intent, open access should be set. Only where embargoes are clear should they be set. In the case of an embargo, the Request an e-print button provides a simple one-click email to the author to request a copy. Doubts about a publisher's rules should never prevent deposit, only access
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
A timely and very clear reminder As promised, I am collecting votes (offline, to avoid cluttering up the list) on whether Stevan should remain as moderator of the list. Please note that we are NOT voting on (a) whether Stevan should change his posting style (he has already said that he will not do so) or (b) whether Stevan should cease to participate in the list - this has never been proposed and indeed there would be precious few postings without him. If you had misunderstood what you were voting about and want to change your vote, in either direction, just let me know Sally Sally Morris Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing Consultancy) South House, The Street Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK Tel: +44(0)1903 871286 Fax: +44(0)8701 202806 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Jan Velterop Sent: 13 October 2008 08:22 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum Apologies for the lateness of my comments on this matter. Stevan has my full support. He is fully entitled to post on this list what he wants and to withold submissions if he deems that right. Those who hold the view that a list such as this one should ~V or indeed can ~V be run 'objectively' and according to some pseudo-democratic rules are, frankly, a bit naïve. Those who don~Rt like Stevan~Rs judgement with regard to acceptance of submissions can always start their own list. That said, Stevan hasn~Rt made it easy on himself, combining the task of moderator with that of host. Other lists separate these roles, and he may wish to consider drafting someone in to help him run the list and do the same (Stevan being the host; someone else being the moderator, I would have thought, given the definitions of the roles, see below). The definitions that, for instance, the BBC uses for the two roles are along the following lines: A host's job is to encourage interesting discussions and to help resolve disagreements. They post regularly on the lists, start discussions or reply to questions. Hosts do not reject messages. A moderator's job is to reject messages that break the ~QHouse Rules~R. Messages will not be rejected for any other reason. Moderators do not post messages on the lists. Among the BBC ~QHouse Rules~R are the following (there are more). Messages are rejected that ~EAre racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable ~EContain swear words or other language likely to offend ~EBreak the law or condone or encourage unlawful activity. ~EAre considered to be off-topic ~EAre considered to be ~Qspam~R, that is posts containing the same, or similar, message posted multiple times. Apart from the possible problem of finding such help, the only difficulty of my suggestion that I can foresee is perhaps dealing with the last house rule mentioned. But then again, Stevan is free to set his own house rules. Jan Velterop=
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
[ The following text is in the WINDOWS-1252 character set. ] [ Your display is set for the iso-8859-1 character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] I don't know what 'voting' means here. It's entirely up to Stevan what to do and what not to do anyway. If he wishes to consult list readers before he decides to do anything, fine. If he doesn't, fine also. At any rate, consulting is not voting. Calling for a vote is precisely the sort of pseudo-democratic imposition that I mentioned and that is not fitting for a list like this. I am ready to offer an opinion or suggestion any time, but not a vote, on line or off. For Stevan, or anybody else, to decide against a suggestion or advice is fine; deciding against a majority 'vote' can all too easily be interpreted in an unpleasant and unhelpful way. I'm going against my own advice and vote against having a vote. Jan Velterop On 13 Oct 2008, at 12:39, Sally Morris (Morris Associates) wrote: A timely and very clear reminder As promised, I am collecting votes (offline, to avoid cluttering up the list) on whether Stevan should remain as moderator of the list. Please note that we are NOT voting on (a) whether Stevan should change his posting style (he has already said that he will not do so) or (b) whether Stevan should cease to participate in the list - this has never been proposed and indeed there would be precious few postings without him. If you had misunderstood what you were voting about and want to change your vote, in either direction, just let me know Sally Sally Morris Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing Consultancy) South House, The Street Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK Tel: +44(0)1903 871286 Fax: +44(0)8701 202806 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Jan Velterop Sent: 13 October 2008 08:22 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum Apologies for the lateness of my comments on this matter. Stevan has my full support. He is fully entitled to post on this list what he wants and to withold submissions if he deems that right. Those who hold the view that a list such as this one should ? or indeed can ? be run 'objectively' and according to some pseudo-democratic rules are, frankly, a bit naïve. Those who don?t like Stevan?s judgement with regard to acceptance of submissions can always start their own list. That said, Stevan hasn?t made it easy on himself, combining the task of moderator with that of host. Other lists separate these roles, and he may wish to consider drafting someone in to help him run the list and do the same (Stevan being the host; someone else being the moderator, I would have thought, given the definitions of the roles, see below). The definitions that, for instance, the BBC uses for the two roles are along the following lines: A host's job is to encourage interesting discussions and to help resolve disagreements. They post regularly on the lists, start discussions or reply to questions. Hosts do not reject messages. A moderator's job is to reject messages that break the ?House Rules?. Messages will not be rejected for any other reason. Moderators do not post messages on the lists. Among the BBC ?House Rules? are the following (there are more). Messages are rejected that ?Are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable ?Contain swear words or other language likely to offend ?Break the law or condone or encourage unlawful activity. ?Are considered to be off-topic ?Are considered to be ?spam?, that is posts containing the same, or similar, message posted multiple times. Apart from the possible problem of finding such help, the only difficulty of my suggestion that I can foresee is perhaps dealing with the last house rule mentioned. But then again, Stevan is free to set his own house rules. Jan Velterop=
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
[ The following text is in the utf-8 character set. ] [ Your display is set for the iso-8859-1 character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] I was on the road in the last few days, cut off from the Internet. This will explain my silence. I agree with all the people that believe Stevan's interventions on this list (and elsewhere) have been invaluable. Sometimes infuriating, but invaluable nonetheless. I have long debated against some of Stevan's theses, but I have learnt a lot from these discussions. The point of my earlier remarks was absolutely not to push Stevan out of this list. This would be total nonsense. The point was a worry about a confusion of roles. As Jan Velterop states it below, doing so ended up in not making it easy on himself for Stevan. I had not thought about JaNs, BBC-inspired, host/moderator distinction, but I find it interesting and useful. It would certainly clarify Stevan's position on this list while not cramping his inimitable style, and it would free him from negative reactions, especially when these have been the result of possible technical delays rather than intent (a reference to my own, inaccurate, outburst that seems to have started this whole discussion). In conclusion, what I was arguing about was not about a vote of confidence (or nonconfidence) with regard to Stevan. I was arguing in favour of a simple clarification of roles. What Stevan has constantly striven to do ultimately strikes me as very difficult and ultimately contradictory: attempting to be as fair as possible, as Stevan has constantly tried to do, while simultaneously adopting a highly polemical style of intervention may not be mutually exclusive stances in theory, but, in practise, they are damn hard to maintain under a single brain. Jean-Claude Guédon Le lundi 13 octobre 2008 à 08:22 +0100, Jan Velterop a écrit : Apologies for the lateness of my comments on this matter. Stevan has my full support. He is fully entitled to post on this list what he wants and to withold submissions if he deems that right. Those who hold the view that a list such as this one should - or indeed can - be run 'objectively' and according to some pseudo-democratic rules are, frankly, a bit naïve. Those who don't like Stevan's judgement with regard to acceptance of submissions can always start their own list. That said, Stevan hasn't made it easy on himself, combining the task of moderator with that of host. Other lists separate these roles, and he may wish to consider drafting someone in to help him run the list and do the same (Stevan being the host; someone else being the moderator, I would have thought, given the definitions of the roles, see below). The definitions that, for instance, the BBC uses for the two roles are along the following lines: A host's job is to encourage interesting discussions and to help resolve disagreements. They post regularly on the lists, start discussions or reply to questions. Hosts do not reject messages. A moderator's job is to reject messages that break the `House Rules'. Messages will not be rejected for any other reason. Moderators do not post messages on the lists. Among the BBC `House Rules' are the following (there are more). Messages are rejected that ...Are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable ...Contain swear words or other language likely to offend ...Break the law or condone or encourage unlawful activity. ...Are considered to be off-topic ...Are considered to be `spam', that is posts containing the same, or similar, message posted multiple times. Apart from the possible problem of finding such help, the only difficulty of my suggestion that I can foresee is perhaps dealing with the last house rule mentioned. But then again, Stevan is free to set his own house rules. Jan Velterop Jean-Claude Guédon Université de Montréal
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
Hello Sally, Just a note to say that although I'm no longer with American Scientist, this Forum is my creation--I invited Stevan to launch it-- and I can see to a moderator change (by making the necessary contact with the system administrator) if need be. Oh yes, and as a member of the list, I vote to keep Stevan. Rosalind Reid (now) Harvard Initiative in Innovative Computing
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
I agree with Derek. From the 'votes' that have been reported it is clear that a large majority support Stevan's role in moderating this list. There should be an end date from the process and this should be within a few days. I think that Sally should set such a deadline so that the list can move on. Tony Hey -Original Message- From: Derek Law d@strath.ac.uk Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 7:53 PM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum Am I the only one who finds this febrile discussion increasingly wearing and irritating? If we must have this vote can we please do the normal thing and have A closing date (ideally about 48 hours ahead for my money) and get back to What actually matters? Derek Law __ Professor Derek Law Turnbull Building University of Strathclyde 155 George Street Glasgow G1 1 RD Tel: +44 141 548 4997 The University of Strathclyde is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, number SC015263.
